Why the BCCI, one of the world’s richest sports bodies, answers to no one

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is one of the wealthiest sports governing bodies in the world. But for years, one simple question has remained unanswered: why is the BCCI not accountable to the public, which funds, watches, and sustains the game it controls? 

On May 18, the Central Information Commission (CIC) responded to this question.

The order came in response to a case filed in Delhi which demanded to understand how the BCCI works, the selection process of players, how stadiums and security is arranged, and if the government has any legal control over the administration of the game. 

The CIC ruled that the BCCI does not fall under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The public, it decided, has no formal right to know how the BCCI operates.

This ruling has sharpened the debate, rather than settle it. 

Over the past year, RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak, director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, filed four queries regarding the BCCI with the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Personnel and Training, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

None of the authorities could explain why the BCCI remained exempt. 

Venkatesh argues that the CIC order is selective in how it interprets previous Supreme Court judgements, while ignoring recommendations of the Law Commission of India and decisions of the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports itself.

For years, the BCCI has operated in a way where public money and public interest converge, yet it remains outside the gambit of transparency. And the question of accountability is not merely procedural because while the body enjoys significant government concessions, tax exemptions, land subsidies, it is facing a trail of corruption allegations.

CIC’s controversial ruling

On May 18, Information Commissioner PR Ramesh ruled that, under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the BCCI does not qualify as a “public authority”.

According to the RTI Act’s definition, a “public authority” is a body established under the Constitution or by bringing in legislation. It could also be a body set up through a government order, or an NGO that uses “substantial” government funds even indirectly.

The ruling emerged amid betting and spot-fixing allegations in the Indian Premier League in 2013.

The Supreme Court appointed the Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee to conduct an independent inquiry. 

Following its report, the SC then appointed the Justice Lodha Committee in 2015 to recommend actions to improve the BCCI. One of the recommendations was to increase transparency and bring BCCI under the RTI Act as the public has a right to know. 

The Supreme Court itself in 2016 weighed in that the BCCI does have monopoly over the game of cricket in India, in the way it discharges “public functions” with the “tacit” government approvals. This itself, the apex court said, makes it answerable to the public. 

Agreeing with the Lodha Committee’s observation, the court asked the Law Commission to examine the issue as a first step towards bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act. 

The Law Commission’s 2018 report recommended that the RTI Act be made applicable to BCCI, considering that it “virtually acts as a National Sports Federation”.

Finally, in 2018, considering the observations of the Law Commission and Supreme Court, the CIC held BCCI as a “public authority” and directed its office bearers to initiate steps to implement it.

Despite these repeated recommendations, and even the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports agreeing with these suggestions, the BCCI was never brought under the RTI Act. 

And now, the recent CIC ruling undoes all of that. It not only contradicts the 2018 order but also goes against the years of judicial scrutiny and the recommendations of the Law Commission. 

According to Venkatesh Nayak, the CIC’s recent ruling was based on a “selective” reading of the Supreme Court’s 2016 order, highlighting that the court never said the BCCI can be regarded a “public authority” under the RTI Act. 

He called the CIC’s overruling the past decision of another Information Commissioner on the same issue “a glaring example of judicial impropriety.”

A history of resisting transparency

The BCCI’s resistance to RTI scrutiny is not new – the May 18 order is only the latest chapter in a much longer story.

Even though it is widely recognised as a national sports federation, the BCCI is conspicuously absent from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports’ list of recognised National Sports Federations.

In 2018, the Law Commission of India published their 275th report titled ‘Legal Framework: BCCI vis-à-vis Right to Information Act, 2005.’ It said that there was no reason why the BCCI should remain outside the ambit of the RTI Act when every other body recognised as a National Sports Federation was already covered under it.

“Non-consideration of the monopolistic role played by BCCI in regulating the game of cricket has allowed the Board to remain beyond the scope of public scrutiny, fostering an environment of opacity and lack of accountability,” said the report.

In 2025, when the Union Government introduced the National Sports Governance Act, it looked like things might change. The assumption was that all national sports bodies, including the BCCI, would finally come under the RTI Act’s purview.

But shortly after tabling the bill, the government moved an amendment that quietly changed the terms while refusing to heed the Law Commission’s recommendations. 

As per the amended Section 14(2), only bodies that receive grants or financial assistance from the Union or state governments would be classified as “public authorities” under the RTI Act. This provision once more handed the BCCI an exemption from RTI on a platter.

With that, the BCCI continued, yet again, to remain beyond the reach of public scrutiny.

Substantial funding

The definition of RTI requires that a body declared as a ‘public authority’ needs to be “substantially financed” by the government. And at the heart of the CIC’s new ruling was a narrow reading of what “substantially financed” means. 

The CIC observed that neither the Union nor state governments release any direct funds to the BCCI — and on that basis, concluded it could not be classified as a public authority.

Notably, the Law Commission had in its 275th report noted that while the BCCI receives no direct financial assistance, it benefits extensively from government concessions — income tax exemptions, customs duty waivers, and access to land and stadiums at subsidised rates.

The money the government forgoes in the form of these concessions, the Commission argued, is money that would otherwise have entered the public exchequer, making it ‘public money’ which indirectly qualifies as “substantial funding” by the government. 

“And, it would follow that the body/entity receiving such benefits would be a ‘public authority’, even though it may be a private, non-statutory or non-government body, thereby putting such a body squarely within the purview of the RTI Act,”  the Law Commission report said.

The record speaks for itself.

The BCCI was granted an income tax exemption in 1996. It enjoyed that exemption for over a decade, until it ran into legal trouble of its own making. 

In 2006 and 2007, it amended its Memorandum of Association, the document that governs its foundational rules. Procedurally, the BCCI is expected to inform the Income Tax Department regarding any such amendments. Since it failed to do so, this triggered disputes that were first heard at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and then proceeded to the Bombay High Court.

According to the Law Commission report, between 1997 and 2007, the BCCI’s total tax exemption amounted to Rs 2,168 crore. Since then, the BCCI has been paying some of its tax dues while simultaneously appealing against demand notices from the Income Tax Department.

The CIC’s recent ruling doesn't account for this history.

This report was republished from The News Minute as part of The News Minute-Newslaundry alliance. Read about our partnership here and become a subscriber here.